Loading...
10-24-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2012 INDEX Sign Variance No. 55-2012 TCT Federal Credit Union 1. Tax Map No. 289.15-1-6 Area Variance No. 56-2012 John A. & Stephanie B. Mason 4. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-3 & 7 Area Variance No. 57-2012 John A. & Stephanie B. Mason 7. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-3 & 7 Notice of Appeal No. 2-2012 Joseph P. Retort 10. Tax Map No. 296.9-2-47 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) OCTOBER 24, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT BRIAN CLEMENTS RONALD KUHL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. It's seven o'clock here at the Town of Queensbury community center. I'd like to call to order this evening's Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, today, October 24th. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's a quite simple process. We'll call each application one by one here. We'll have the application read into the record. We'll ask the applicant to join us here at the table or their representatives. We will have the applicant add anything they wish to the discussion, and Board members may ask questions. We'll open up a public hearing when it is scheduled. Generally we'll poll the Board after that to get some feedback and then try to decide on motions. So, we don't have any Old Business this evening. So we'll start right off with New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 55-2012 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AGENT(S) SARATOGA SIGN PRO'S INC. OWNER(S) TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ZONING O LOCATION 4 HUNTERBOOK LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 45 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN USING EXISTING SIGN POLES WHERE A PREVIOUS FREESTANDING SIGN EXISTED FOR THE CHURCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACKS FOR LOCATION OF A FREESTANDING SIGN ON A CORNER LOT. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN. CROSS REF BP 2002-815 SF SIGN CHURCH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 1.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-6 SECTION CHAPTER 130 JUDY FROLISH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 55-2012, TCT Federal Credit Union, Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 "Project Location: 11 & 12 Heron Hollow Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a 45 sq. ft. freestanding sign using existing sign poles where a previous freestanding sign existed. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: 1. Property line setback - Relief requested from minimum front yard setback for location of a freestanding sign. 2. Height - Relief requested from maximum height restrictions for a freestanding sign in the o-zone. Criteria for considering an Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Placement in a compliant location may be considered a feasible method by which to avoid this request for setback relief. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 2.13 feet or 14% relief from the 15 foot property line setback requirement for freestanding signs as per§140-6. The request for 2.3 feet or 38% relief from the 6 foot maximum allowed height for freestanding signs as per§140-7 in the O-zone may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. Existing conditions may have played a role in this request for relief. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SP 52-12 Site repurposing from place of worship to bank Approved 9/28/12 BP 02-815: freestanding sign Approved 2002 Staff comments: 1. Existing infrastructure exists and that is what appears to be driving this request. 2. The proposed sign exists at the existing TCT Credit Union Branch located at 9 Hunterbrook Lane across from this request and was approved in April of 2011 for height relief. SEAR Status: Unlisted -SEQR Short Form attached to application." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I certainly remember the last time that you folks were in front of us. Welcome. If you could state your name and address or representation for the record. ERVIN HILTS MR. HILTS-Ervin Hilts with TCT Federal Credit Union. MS. FROLISH-Judy Frolish with Saratoga Sign Pros. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. It's a pretty simple and straightforward application. Do you have anything else you'd like to add at this time? MS. FROLISH-1 did bring some renderings which I'll pass out to the Board, if that would be all right. MR. JACKOSKI-Of course. MS. FROLISH-It was mentioned that we are using an existing location that the former tenant had used there for their church sign, and there's existing mature landscaping, as well as, if you'll notice on Page Two of the photographs, an existing infrastructure as far as steel columns and concrete base that were already poured between the landscaped area. As far as the character of the neighborhood, I enclosed those other photographs of the existing signs in the neighborhood, which all pre-dates the zoning change in 2010. The orthopedic sign is 45 square feet and 110 inches in height. The Adirondack Dental is 130 inches in height. The Queensbury Town Center is 110 inches in height. The Adirondack Dental second sign is 100 inches in height. So essentially all of the neighboring signs are taller than what we're requesting, with the exception of the smaller Adirondack Dental. The height really is not creating an undesirable change in our opinion because all the neighboring signs are of equal or greater height, and the setback really of 28 inches or 26 inches is really quite slight in our estimation, as compared to the change in this front area. If we needed to move all of the existing structure and landscaping back that 26 inches, it would make a much less appealing appearance to the front of this lot if that were the case, and I can go through each of the five points, but I think maybe I'll just wait and see if there's questions. MR. JACKOSKI-That seems reasonable. Does anyone here on the Board at this time have any questions for the applicant? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) MR. KUHL-I'll just ask one. You're effectively taking the old sign in the location, just moving it over? MR. HILTS-That is correct, yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions from Board members? Having no other questions, I'd like to open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience at this time, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No, there is not. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment and no one in the audience, I'd like to poll the Board. We'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It's essentially the same sign as what we approved previously. Because you're just moving it from Hunterbrook over to the corner there, and I think the fact that you already have the infrastructure in place for a previously existing sign, I see no reason not to permit you to put this one up here. The relief is inconsequential at 26 inches, I think, and 28 inches. So it's not anything that bugs me. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree. I remember voting on signs like this in the area, and I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with both the previous Board members. I have nothing against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-It seems like a reasonable request to me, and I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-1 think it's reasonable also because there's no visual impact to the traffic. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I can't see how this would have any possible adverse impacts on the neighborhood. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Given the polling of the Board, I think it's appropriate to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And can I have a motion for SEAR? MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion. MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE PROVIDED INFORMATION, THIS PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RE: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 55-2012 TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Would anyone like to make a motion concerning the application itself? MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 55-2012 TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 4 Hunterbrook Lane. The applicant proposes installation of a 45 square foot freestanding sign using existing sign poles where a previous freestanding sign existed. The applicant requests the following relief: property line setback, relief from the requested minimum front setback for the location of freestanding sign and a height restriction, 26 from the road and 28 for height. There will be minor impacts to the neighborhood because this sign has already existed, actually a smaller one. The placement is replacing a sign that already existed there. The requests are moderate. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and the existing conditions may have played a role in this. I move that we approve Sign Variance No. 55-2012. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-See, that was fast, right? A lot better than last time. MS. FROLISH-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. MR. HILTS-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2012 SEQRA TYPE 11 JOHN A. & STEPHANIE B. MASON AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S) JOHN A. & STEPHANIE B. MASON ZONING WR LOCATION 11 & 12 HERON HOLLOW ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 523 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING 4,596 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR 70-2012; BP 2009-518 SEPTIC; BP 2009-371 PERC TEST; BP 89-804 DEMO SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.46 & 0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-3 &7 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2012, John A. & Stephanie B. Mason, Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 "Project Location: 11 & 12 Heron Hollow Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 523 sq. ft. first story addition to existing 4,596 sq. ft. residence. Further, roof to be raised to 28 feet in order to accommodate second story renovation. Relief requested from minimum shoreline and side yard setback requirements for proposed renovation as well as for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Shoreline- Request for 11.5 feet of shoreline setback relief. Side Yard - Request for less than 1 foot of north side setback relief. Expansion of a non-conforming structure-This must be reviewed and approved by the ZBA. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited as a result of existing conditions and nature of the variance request. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 11.5 feet or 23% relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the code. Further, the request for 0.88 feet or 4.4% relief from the 20 foot north side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered inconsequential relative to the code. Finally, the request for the expansion of a N/C structure must be approved by this board. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, A.V. 57-12 Setback relief for boathouse Pending B.P. 09-518 Septic Alteration 11/29/10 B.P. 09-371 Deep hole test pit 5/25/10 Staff comments: 1. Septic certification has been submitted, please see Hutchins Engineering letter dated September 7, 2012. 2. Lots must be combined to avoid additional area variances. The ZBA may wish to consider this requirement a condition of approval. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and I do believe we had a motion from the Planning Board, approval. MR. URRICO-Yes. Okay. The Planning Board recommended that, based on its limited review, it has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and this was adopted October 23, 2012, and it was adopted unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, and just for the record, for full disclosure, as everyone knows in the past, I have used Mr. O'Connor for some personal matters. So I don't think that creates a conflict of interest, but also I should note that my family and I live in the neighborhood, but I don't believe we're within the 500 feet. So I don't even believe we got noticed on this project. Welcome. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Michael O'Connor, for the purpose of your record, from Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicants. The applicants are here with me at the table, John and Stefanie Mason, and basically we have a pre-existing home that they wish to re-model, add a recreation room to, and because it's pre-existing, in proximity to the lake, it does require a variance, and also because it is a nonconforming home as it presently sits. The main addition to the home is a recreation room, which is on the back of the house away from the lake. They also wish to raise the roof of the home, and when they raise the roof of the home, it'll still be compliant with the 28 foot requirement, but it will allow them to use a wood shingle roofing system that they wish to put on. It also will improve the windows that are in the second floor. Right now the windows are probably about waist height at the top, and I think as somebody has denoted these are called witch's windows. That's the new ones. Okay, and this will be, allow them to have better visibility. That's basically it. I don't think it has any environmental impacts of any nature. It has no impacts on the community. We do stipulate that we will join the two lots (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) that they have, and when we join the two lots that we have, we're approximately half of what the Floor Area Ratio would allow. So we're not talking about the typical variances that you sometimes see on the lake. If you have any questions, we'd be glad to answer them. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I would just make the comment all the setbacks just seem to be a pre- existing, you're not going to increase the amount of. MR. O'CONNOR-No, we are not. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. GARRAND-On the second floor one of the renderings shows a window kind of sideways. Is that for real? JOHN MASON MR. MASON-That's the witch's window. That's a Vermont tradition. MR. JACKOSKI-I was worried you were putting that in there for your wife. So I'm just making sure that that's okay. All right. MR. MASON-It's also known as a coffin window, but it is a Vermont tradition. MR. JACKOSKI-You are in New York. MR. MASON-We wanted to create some view out of that side, but we really liked the looks of the gable. It allows us the glass, it allows us the view, and at the same time it doesn't interfere with that, with the aesthetics on both the north and the south side. I do want to point out one thing, and I mentioned this to Mike earlier, that the only reason we're here in front of you for a variance is because of the roof. It has nothing to do with the addition on the back. It's that, it's the fact that we're going up with the roof in the setback area. The entire house is in the setback area, and the only reason we're doing this, I won't say the only reason, but the biggest reason is aesthetics. The house, as you can see there, that second floor is very, it's pretty squatty, and if you get upstairs in that house, there's no view out of the windows because the window height's at about chin height. MR. GARRAND-And you're getting a man cave? MR. MASON-No. MR. O'CONNOR-You guys are brave tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-We know you're getting paid by the minute, so we're dragging it out. MR. O'CONNOR-I know the minutes are being taken, but obviously your wives aren't here. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Are there any other questions from Board members? I'd like to open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Having no public in the audience, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, at this point, this is a Type II SEAR. So I'd like to poll the Board. I'll start with Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-I think this is a reasonable application, and I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I have no doubt it is very reasonable. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have no problem with it. It's a modest request. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think with the consolidation of the two lots that it's definitely, it prevents building on the other lot, and it makes it a nice large parcel with a beautiful home on the lot. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I agree with my fellow Board members, I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The amount of relief already exists. It's not going to be impacted at all by what you're doing because you're just going up at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. After polling the Board, we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to put forth a motion? MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2012 JOHN A. & STEPHANIE B. MASON, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 11 & 12 Heron Hollow Road. The applicant proposes a 523 square foot first story addition to the existing 4596 square foot residence. Further roof to be raised to 28 feet in order to accommodate the second story addition. Relief requested from minimum shoreline an side yard setback requirements for the proposed renovations as well as expansion of a non-conforming structure. The relief requested for the shoreline is 11.5 feet of shoreline setback relief. Side yard relief is less than one foot of north side setback relief, and also the expansion of a non- conforming structure, and with this the applicant has stipulated that they will combine the two lots into one large lot. On the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible? I think this is the most feasible way to do it. Will this produce any undesirable change in the neighborhood? I cannot foresee any undesirable change in the neighborhood at all. The septic system is upgraded. I think it's a wonderful addition. Whether this request is substantial. I'd say it's pretty moderate. Will the request have adverse physical or environmental effects? I cannot foresee any possible environmental effects on the neighborhood whatsoever, and this request may be deemed self-created since it is the applicant requesting the addition. So I move we approve Area Variance 56-2012. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2012 SEQRA TYPE II JOHN A. & STEPHANIE B. MASON AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S) JOHN A. & STEPHANIE B. MASON ZONING WR LOCATION 11 & 12 HERON HOLLOW ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO EXISTING 544 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE TO INCLUDE REDUCTION IN OVERALL SIZE DOWN TO 450 SQ. FT., RELOCATION OF ACCESS STAIRS AND FAQADE UPGRADE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE EXTENDED NORTH SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 20 FT. FOR DOCKS. CROSS REF SPR 71-2012; BP 2009-518 SEPTIC; BP 2009-371 PERC TEST; BP 89-904 DEMO SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.46 &0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1- 3 & 7 SECTION 179-5-060(7) MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Area Variance No. 57-2012, John A. & Stephanie B. Mason, Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 "Project Location: 11 & 12 Heron Hollow Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) Applicant proposes modification to existing 544 sq. ft. boathouse to include reduction in overall size to 450 sq. ft., relocation of access stairs and fagade upgrade. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: • Relief requested from the extended north side setback requirement of 20 ft. for docks. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives short of removing the structure in totality and placing in a compliant location appear limited due to existing conditions and nature of the project. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 9.1 feet or 45% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for docks/boathouses as per §179-5-060 may be considered moderate relative to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, A.V. 57-12 Setback relief for boathouse Pending B.P. 09-518 Septic Alteration 11/29/10 B.P. 09-371 Deep hole test pit 5/25/10 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to reduce the size of the proposed boathouse from an existing 544 square feet down to 450 square feet. It is stated that only the superstructure will be removed and replaced. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board motion to make a recommendation on behalf of this application, based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted October 23, 2012 and that was a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome, again, and it's a pretty straightforward application again, but if you could. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, again, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor, and with me at the table are the applicants, John and Stefanie Mason. It basically is renovation of the boathouse. It will have a much nicer appearance than the existing boathouse when they're done. It will also allow them to accommodate their boat. The actual boathouse structure is all that will be replaced. The wharf will remain the same as it has been. The wharf probably was put in there when there was a 10 foot setback, as opposed to the 20 foot setback that presently is in existence. To do anything else, they would have to remove the whole wharf system, which is a pier system, which would be a great undertaking or very expensive undertaking. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Board members at this time? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) MR. CLEMENTS-1 just have one. You're going to reduce this by about 94 feet, and I just can't see from the two plans on here where that would be. Can you just explain where the reduction is? JOHN MASON MR. MASON-The reduction is in the top surface. That's apparently the way the Town, they're more concerned with the flat surface. The actual outline of the boathouse is going to be wider and it's going to be wider so that we can get our boat in. Our boat has a larger beam than that. It's an old wooden boat and it's got an 11 foot beam. So we have to make the boathouse wider, but what we're also doing is we're going to slope it in so that we end up with a smaller surface area, smaller sundeck on top, and that's the figures they're using there. Okay, and the addition of making it wider is wider toward shore. Everything else is going to stay. That corner, that outer corner is going to stay exactly where it is today. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? Hearing none, I will open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Not even the Water Keeper. That'll tell you something. Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No, not even from the Water Keeper. MR. JACKOSKI-Not even from the Water Keeper. That'll tell you something about this project. Okay. So I'm going to poll the Board. I'm going to start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Yes. I think it's a good project. I have nothing against it. I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I think it's a reasonable request also. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It's essentially an upgrade of what you already have there, and it's going to be slightly smaller and I think it's going to be a nice addition to the neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think it's a moderate request. I don't have any problems with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm in favor of it. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-And I obviously, too, am in favor of it, and quite frankly you should be commended for keeping the shoreline the way you have and minimizing your potential development of this project. So thank you for doing that, and, I mean, it does say something when the Water Keeper's not here raising red flags. So that does mean something. Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And look for a motion. I have a feeling it's coming from Jim. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2012 JOHN A. & STEPHANIE B. MASON, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 11 & 12 Heron Hollow Road. Those lots will also be combined and that will essentially do away with the two properties. The applicant's proposing modification of an existing 544 square foot 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) boathouse to include a reduction in overall size to 450 square feet, and relocation of the access stairs and fagade upgrade. Under the relief required, the relief requested is from the extended north side setback requirement of 20 feet for docks. As explained by the applicants, probably this dock was originally erected when there was a 10 foot setback, and at this point in time, recognizing that we've gone to 20 feet, the dock will remain, the piers will remain as they are set in the water and the only thing that will be changing will be the upper story of the building above the water, above the dock. So essentially the request for 9.1 feet could be considered moderate relief, but at this point it's been there in existence for many years. The difficulty is considered to be self-created, but at this point in time, the Board does not consider this to be any detriment to the neighborhood. In fact, we think it'll help the neighborhood appreciate in value in the future. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-Brian raised the question, and I just want to be sure, for clarification, the 454 is the size of the deck surface. MR. JACKOSKI-The sundeck. MR. O'CONNOR-The sundeck, and everybody understands that. So that if somebody goes up, puts a tape measure across the back of it that's wider, it produces more than 454, but the sundeck is what we're talking about the 454. MR. MASON-The dimensions are on the print showing the (lost words). MR. UNDERWOOD-And that's because you've got those little hip roofs on each side. MR. O'CONNOR-It was a valid point to raise. MR. MASON-How could it be smaller when it's bigger? AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. MASON-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-As long as everybody is in a good mood, when you have an application that requires a variance and site plan, we need a new form. We don't need 15 copies for the variance and 15 for the site plan. We're killing trees. The other point, it doesn't do any good to collect the drawings, because when they ask for four copies of the drawings afterwards, they want your resolution. So there's another bunch of copies that are made. MR. JACKOSKI-That is a good point. MR. O'CONNOR-It's supposed to be a friendly system. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2012 SEQRA TYPE II JOSEPH P. RETORT OWNER(S) JOSEPH AND CATHY RETORT ZONING MDR LOCATION 24 OAKWOOD DRIVE APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION, SECTION 179-5-070 FENCING REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INSTALLATION OF A FENCE DURING THE YEAR 2006 ON THE PROPERTY LISTED ABOVE. CROSS REF NONE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-2-47 SECTION 179-14-010 JOSEPH RETORT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 2-2012, Joseph P. Retort, Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 "Project Location: 24 Oakwood Drive Information Requested: Appellant has filed an appeal application regarding the Town fence code requirements. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) Staff comments: Standing: Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing party aggrieved? • The application was signed and filed with the Town on September 21, 2012. The Zoning Administrator determination was rendered on August 20, 2012. • The appellant is the listed owner of the property at 24 Oakwood Drive. The appellant appears to have met the requirement for standing to bring an appeal before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Merits: The appellant claims that the Town fencing requirements in 2006 were different than the requirements that are currently in effect. The Zoning Administrator asserts that the 2006 fence code requirements are the same as the current requirements. Please see attached copy. 2002 code in effect in 2006- 179-5-060 C, (3): No fence over six feet in height shall be erected or maintained in any rear or side yard; no fence over five feet in height shall be erected or maintained in the front yard not considered to be the architectural yard. 2009 code in effect in 2012 - 179-5-070 C, (3): No fence over six feet in height shall be erected or maintained in any rear or side yard except for corner lots where no fence over four feet in height shall be erected or maintained along yards adjacent to public streets." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. If you could state your name for the record. MR. RETORT-Good evening. Joseph Retort. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joseph. I suspect you don't need to add anything at this time because it's pretty straightforward, or would you like to? MR. RETORT-Yes. In the new Code under 179-5-070, it does state, Line Four, height, and it says fence height shall be measured from lowest point of the natural grade, which wasn't in the old Code, and what we did is we put a retaining wall on the corner of the area, I have pictures. I'm sorry I didn't make copies for everyone. I didn't realize. This is my first time here, but we put a retaining wall, and from the top of the retaining wall, the fence is six foot in height. It's just that it sits on a retaining wall because we leveled our property. It drops down, and you can kind of see that in the pictures, and we've had it for six years with no complaints. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Craig, how are fences measured? MR. BROWN-Yes. I didn't know, are you all set with, were you going to add anything else? MR. RETORT-No, no. It's just that where it states height, you know, it says you have to follow the grade, and back then in the other Code it didn't have that. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. GARRAND-How were fences measured in, say, 2006? MR. BROWN-Basically the same way, measured from the top of the fence, not the top of the post because a lot of times the posts are a little taller than the fence, but the top of the fence to the lowest grade. Whether it's the inside of the fence or the outside of the fence, your side or the neighbor's side, it's measured, what's the overall height of the fence, the biggest dimension? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) MR. GARRAND-Okay, because I know we had a variance request at one point in Bedford Close for something similar to this years ago. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-An application like this, because it's been there for six years, I mean, when does it become a nonconforming, pre-existing type condition? I mean, six years have gone by. MR. RETORT-Wouldn't it be grandfathered? MR. BROWN-I guess it would be grandfathered, if that's the question, if the fence was put in and there was no regulation that said you couldn't do it, and you put it in and have maintained it since then, that's grandfathered, but if there was a rule in place that said, here's how you can put fences in and if you don't follow those rules when it gets put in, anything that's illegal can't be considered grandfathered. So, I guess in 2006 if this fence was presented as, is this a compliant fence, the answer would have been, no, it's not, because, while it might be six feet on the inside of the fence, the outside of the fence, from the top of the fence down past the retaining wall, is taller than six feet. So that would require a fence variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there an adjoining neighbor dispute going on? MR. BROWN-That's how it started. We received a complaint from the neighbor who's, I guess, behind Mr. Retort, and, you know, conducted an investigation, went out and took a look, and that's why we're here. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So now this is an application for an appeal of the decision, which would, in essence, if we granted the appeal, would be approving the fence, or would they have to go, then, through, and get a variance? MR. BROWN-No. Well, if you agreed with the appellant and said he's right, I'm wrong, that means he doesn't have to come and get a height variance for your fence. You're saying that his interpretation of the Code is correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, but if we don't agree, he has the option of going and asking for a variance. MR. BROWN-For an oversized fence, yes. That's correct. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So we're all on the same page as to what our task is here. Are there any questions by Board members of the applicant? MR. KUHL-Do I understand you to say that you erected the fence without a permit? Did he need a permit? MR. BROWN-No, we don't require permits for fences. There are just basically rules that you have to follow, but there's no permitting process. MR. RETORT-Yes, because we didn't need one at the time. MR. KUHL-Okay. So he didn't do anything that he shouldn't have done. MR. BROWN-Other than build a fence that was too tall. MR. KUHL-At one point or at all points? MR. RETORT-At one point. MR. BROWN-Kind of the, if you're in his yard, the left side to the fence. MR. KUHL-How many sections, Joseph? MR. RETORT-Where it's raised? MR. KU H L-Yes. MR. RETORT-In that corner. Let me see, I can. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) MR. BROWN-Maybe two or three. MR. RETORT-Yes, this corner probably right up to here. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. RETORT-Only that area, maybe five, six sections. MR. KUHL-Okay. So in reality, he should have come for a variance on that length of fence. MR. BROWN-Again, if that question was asked in 2006, is this an acceptable fence, the determination would have been, no, you need a height for that fence, for that portion of the fence. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think he would have been in a situation, too, where he would have had to step down if we had kept him, it would have been a step down, because of the fact that he raised the stone underneath. MR. RETORT-Yes, we tried to keep it level. MR. UNDERWOOD-Tried to keep it level all the way across. MR. RETORT-Just to have a nice appearance. MR. JACKOSKI-What's the overall height at the lowest point on the other side of the fence? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's compliant. MR. BROWN-Well, if you're in his yard, to the right hand side, over the fence is probably compliant. To the left hand side, where there's the fence and the retaining wall, it's maybe three feet. MR. RETORT-Yes, the retaining wall is probably two feet. MR. BROWN-Two feet. So it's a couple feet, it's about eight feet. MR. RETORT-At the lowest point. MR. URRICO-Craig, you said that in 2006 this would not be compliant, but if it was built today, it's still not compliant. MR. BROWN-It's still not compliant. MR. JACKOSKI-But they would have the option of coming in for a variance. MR. BROWN-At either time, yes. MR. CLEMENTS-You had some, we have some zoning pages from the Zoning Code in here. The question that you had about the measurement, you said that the difference between the two was what? MR. RETORT-Yes, well, under 179-5-070, in the new Code, under Line Four, it has height, fence height shall be measured from the lowest point of the natural grade. MR. CLEMENTS-And you said that that's not in the zoning of 2009. MR. RETORT-When I did it in 2006, that was not in there. MR. BROWN-Yes, that's correct. MR. RETORT-And that's where 1, you know, if you're measuring from the lowest grade, that's not including the retaining wall, and when we did the retaining wall, we were allowed to put that retaining wall. MR. BROWN-Yes, it was added as a clarification to the Code. What we were finding is people would put in a fence that was a foot off the ground, and then it would be a six foot fence, and they'd say, no, it's a six foot fence. So we just put a clarification. I mean, it's obvious that you have to measure from the ground, but that's why it was added is so that you don't count that, you have to count that space between the bottom of the fence and the ground. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) MR. KUHL-But if an individual builds a retaining wall to level out his property, does that new level now become the measuring point? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. BROWN-You've got to measure on either side, whichever's the bigger dimension. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-But if he had a two foot walkway all the way around the outside perimeter? MR. BROWN-I suppose that would be, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-It's a technicality. MR. BROWN-Yes. It's a technicality. There's no dimension that says you have to be 10 feet away from the fence before we count it as a full drop off, you know, there's no. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. RETORT-Well, if I could say one thing, you know, it's been there six years. We've had no complaints from any of the neighbors, and, you know, it's just hard to fathom that over six years now, you know, there would be an issue. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any other questions from Board members? Hearing none, I'd like to open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-As we can say, no. Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-1 do not see any written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-That's interesting. No written comment? MR. URRICO-1 am not finding any. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We are not finding any in the record. At this time I'm going to poll the Board. Rick? MR. GARRAND-While it was not stipulated in the previous Code that natural grade is where measurements should be taken, the Town has always held that natural grade is where measurements are taken. Whether it be for height of buildings or a fence, it's always been natural grade. Whether it was stipulated or not, it's the way it's always been. It's the Code. There's been no other point of reference, consistent point of reference for the Town to measure from for the height of anything. So I would have to support the Zoning Administrator on this one. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I'm somewhat in agreement with you, but I think technically I think we're in a situation where the new Code, we definitely used the natural grade, and in the past, I think that we've also relied, as you said, on the natural grade also, but in the instance here, I think that the applicant was acting in good faith because you went off that retaining because you went off that retaining wall just by trying to maintain a steady plain of the fence through the whole side there that's affected here by being over height. I think, technically, I think Craig is making a determination. His determination is correct in the sense that, you know, he's taking a literal interpretation of it, but I would disagree because I think that, you know, the applicant was acting in good faith. The thing has been up for six years. I don't think that there was any attempt on the part of the applicant to gain an extra couple of feet on this fence over those four to six sections of fence down there in the corner. So, I'm going to disagree. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Since this hearing is not, we're not hearing a variance, we're hearing an appeal, I feel there's a different standard to apply here, and in this case, I think the Zoning Administrator was correct in his ruling, because the Code was the Code at the time, and it's a shame that it's six years that it's taken. It seems a little draconian to me, but because we're (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) listening to the appeal, I think the Zoning Administrator was correct in his ruling. I might feel differently if we were listening to a variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I think I have to agree with Roy, and I would say that I would definitely agree to a variance for it, but we had a very contentious problem with the same kind of thing on a property on Lake George, and we did determine at that time that we were looking at natural grade at that time, so I'm going to have to go with the Zoning Administrator, but I want to say that I would certainly go along with a variance for this. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I think you're challenging the written word, and based on the written word and what it is, I would have to go with the Zoning Administrator also. I mean, as far as a variance, to me, that would be a good thing. I mean, I'd agree to a variance, but as far as this, I'd go with the Zoning Administrator. Sorry. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. Yes. I have to agree. I would support the Zoning Administrator, but I would also support a variance if you came for a variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So it's pretty clear as to how the Board is going to vote. We're going to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator it seems, but it's pretty clear that the Board members have said that if you come back in with a variance application and go through that entire process, it's pretty likely that they'd be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is he forced into that situation where he has to seek a variance? MR. BROWN-Well, no. I mean, there's always the option to make the fence compliant, but I don't think that's a feasible one to cut a couple of feet off the fence. So I would bet a dollar that he's going to be back with a variance application to keep the fence the way that it is. MR. JACKOSKI-And that way, too, it gives notice to the public as to what it is, and we go through the whole hearing process. MR. BROWN-Right. Yes, he's not forced, but it seems like the next logical step is to come in. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to put forth a motion? MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UPHOLDS THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION FOR APPEAL NO. 2-2012 JOSEPH P. RETORT, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And, Staff, is there a specific timeline for when he would have to come back in to actually apply for that variance? MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to have to notice him? MR. BROWN-What do you mean? MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to have to write him another letter? MR. BROWN-No, I think the process is maybe by the next deadline which the 15th of the month is always their deadline to submit an application. So if you can get one together for November 15th, we could have you on the December. If it takes until December 15th, you're not going any place. The fence isn't going any place, you know. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) MR. RETORT-And so the variance would allow me to maintain it as it is? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think all we're saying to you is we all understand, but we're going to go through the process. MR. RETORT-Thank you very much.. MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry. MR. RETORT-And then the forms I just pickup downstairs? MR. BROWN-The forms you can pick up downstairs, or they're online, but whichever. We can have one out for you tomorrow if you want to stop in. MR. RETORT-Okay. All right. Great. Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The sooner the better. Just a moment, sir. Can we give a waiver for survey requirements in that regard? Mr. Underwood just brought that to my attention, and I normally don't require. MR. UNDERWOOD-Since we already know where it is, it's already there. MR. BROWN-Well, I mean, we don't know if he, he may have a survey that he wants to use. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, we just have to remember this Board has kind of directed me that in those kinds of decisions you've asked me for pure numerical data. MR. BROWN-Yes. I guess to respond to your question is, and to help Mr. Retort, any variance application requires a survey map that's prepared by a licensed land surveyor that has all the current site improvements on it. The Chairman, at his discretion, can render a waiver from that survey map requirement. So, if, when you're preparing your application, you don't have a survey or you don't think a survey is needed, you can request that he give you a waiver from that, and it sounds like some of the Board members here would be in support of that. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. So, if you don't mind, I'm going to poll the Board now, while we're all here. MR. BROWN-Just keep in mind, sometimes survey maps not only show like building setbacks, but is the fence on the line, over the line, wavering back and forth across the line? So, you know, sometimes surveys are good to have. Sometimes, if it's a 50 acre lot and it's a house in the middle, you don't have to worry about setbacks. Maybe that's a good time to give a waiver, but. MR. JACKOSKI-Are you aware of any boundary line issues with your fellow neighbors? MR. RETORT-We erected it on the same line as the previous fence that had been there. MR. BROWN-I'm just saying. MR. RETORT-And it's within the boundaries. I know that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, fellow Board members, I'll start with Ron. Can I waive the survey? MR. KU H L-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MR. HUNT-Yes, you may. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 waive it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAN D-Yes. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, waive it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we all know that I'm going to be waiving it as Chairman of the Zoning Board. Okay. MR. BROWN-Or at least for on the record you may consider waiving it. We don't want to waive something you don't even have an application for yet. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you want me to come back and tell everybody I decided not to? Thank you. MR. RETORT-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Any new business to be brought before the Board? Hearing none, and not seeing Mr. Salvador in the audience this evening, Craig got lucky, I need a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 2012, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-7:50 p.m. Good night. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 17